Introduction

Imagine going in for dental implant surgery and walking away not only in pain but worse off than when you started. This is exactly what happened in a recent case where a patient was awarded significant damages due to botched dental work. What makes this case even more interesting is that the patient also managed to recover compensation from her credit card company, under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Why? Because she paid for the treatment with her credit card.

What Happened?

The patient (the Claimant) went to a private dental clinic run by a dentist operating through her own company, Brilliant Dental Ltd (“BDL”). Her goal was simple enough—she wanted to replace a bridge for her lower front teeth with an implant.

The problem started there. A proper pre-surgery scan (which would’ve shown whether the procedure was viable) wasn’t done. That critical step would’ve flagged issues like insufficient bone density or risks to nearby teeth. But it got worse during surgery. The dentist placed the implant post incorrectly, causing the Claimant considerable pain. Attempts at fixing the problem with postoperative care, including root canal treatment, failed. An independent expert later found that the implant had actually damaged the root of a neighbouring tooth. Things spiralled further when the Claimant had to go through more surgeries to repair the damage—and on top of that, she developed colitis from the pain medication she had to take.

The Legal Claim

The Claimant took legal action against the dentist for negligence. But she didn’t stop there—she also pursued her credit card provider under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Now, this is an important detail. When you pay for something with a credit card and the service goes wrong, section 75 allows you to hold the credit card company responsible, provided there’s a ‘debtor-creditor-supplier’ relationship in place.

Despite the dentist denying responsibility, she didn’t provide any expert evidence to counter the Claimant’s expert, Professor Harding, at trial. Unsurprisingly, the court sided with the Claimant and found the dentist negligent. Then the judge moved on to the more unique aspect of the case—whether the credit card company was liable too.

Section 75 in Action

Section 75 states that when you buy goods or services on a credit card, the credit provider can be held jointly responsible if the supplier misrepresents or breaches the contract. After going through the facts, the judge found that since the treatment was paid for on the Claimant’s credit card, the credit card company was jointly and severally liable alongside the dentist’s company.

Why Does This Matter?

This case highlights just how useful section 75 can be. We often think of it as a way to get a refund for a dodgy online purchase, but it can also play a role in negligence claims if the service provider can’t afford to pay damages. For example, if a dentist has inadequate insurance or limited financial resources, section 75 offers claimants a way to receive compensation from the credit card company instead.

It’s a reminder for anyone dealing with professional negligence claims—and their legal representatives—to think about whether section 75 could be relevant. Sometimes, it’s an overlooked option.

Final Takeaway

The key lesson here? If you’ve suffered due to negligence and paid for the service with a credit card, don’t forget to consider section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act as part of your compensation strategy. It could make a big difference, especially if the service provider can’t cover the damages themselves.

For both patients and professionals, this case reinforces the importance of understanding your rights as a consumer. And if you’re a service provider? Well, it’s another reason to ensure your work—and your insurance—are up to scratch.

Legal disclaimer 

The matters contained within this article are intended to be for general information purposes only. This blog does not constitute legal advice, nor is it a complete or authoritative statement of the law in England and Wales and should not be treated as such. 

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the information is correct, no warranty, either express or implied, is given as to its’ accuracy, and no liability is accepted for any errors or omissions. 

Before acting on any of the information contained herein, expert advice should always be sought. 

© Melissa Worth 2025